ILNews

Court hears appeal over state's objections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who appealed his burglary conviction over the state’s objection did not fully understand the terms of his plea agreement, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Friday.

Danny Holloway was charged with six felonies and agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony burglary and to waive his right to appeal, with the state agreeing to drop the other charges. But although Holloway signed the agreement, at his combined guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the judge told Holloway at least twice that he would be able to appeal, and the state did not object.

The appeals court cited Bonilla v. State, 907 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), in its decision to hear Holloway’s appeal: “This advisement occurred . . . before Bonilla received the benefit of his bargain. . . . In light of the contradictory and confusing information Bonilla received at his guilty plea hearing . . . we conclude that he did not waive the right to appeal his sentence.” The court held that Holloway, similarly, did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal.

In July of 2010, Holloway broke into the home of a woman who knew him. She was on a mattress on the floor, sleeping with her three children and woke up when Holloway tried to remove her jeans. She saw Holloway kneeling at her side, and he then fled.

In Danny Holloway v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1011-CR-703, Holloway appealed his sentence as inappropriate. As part of his plea agreement, Holloway’s initial executed sentence would be capped at 10 years. The trial court sentenced him to 16 years with 10 years executed, six years suspended, and five years of probation. The appeals court held that because his burglary was not demonstrably less egregious than a “typical” burglary – and because of his criminal background – the sentence was appropriate.

Holloway’s record includes three juvenile offenses, fifteen adult convictions, and three probation revocations.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT